Ocoee Man Fires Back During Home Invasion


PDA






AWorthyOpponent
March 17, 2010, 01:51 AM
Just say this on the news. There has been a lot of home invasion happening in the area lately but this is the first time someone has fought back.

http://www.wesh.com/news/22857398/detail.html


A homeowner in Ocoee fought back when he was confronted during a home invasion on Tuesday.

David Henry's wife and daughter were inside at the time of the shooting. Henry's wife said she heard gunfire and her husband moaning. That's when she called 911.

The man ended up killing one of the robbers in an exchange of gunfire. He was an active Florida CCW holder.
+1 for the good guys

If you enjoyed reading about "Ocoee Man Fires Back During Home Invasion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Priz
March 17, 2010, 03:18 AM
You'd go direct to jail for this in Canada.


From my understanding: We're allowed to lock ourselves in a room, arm ourselves equally to whatever the invader has, announce we're in there, and only fight back if we've done all that and they still enter the room. If we go after them, we're commiting a criminal offense and can get life if they happen to get shot while breaking into our houses. Apparently we're supposed to hope that karma will get them, or something.

We have pretty much the same constitution as you in regards to gun laws. Be thankful for the NRA, I can't help but think that if we had one, our "gun control" wouldn't have gone so wrong.

Kevin77
March 17, 2010, 04:22 AM
God Bless the USA.

AWorthyOpponent
March 17, 2010, 04:43 AM
You'd go direct to jail for this in Canada

Here in Florida, this is covered by the castle doctrine. Basically you do not have the duty to retreat (like Canada). If anyone comes into your home or car while you are in it, it is assumed that they are there to cause death or great bodily harm. Makes sense to me. If they are there pulling you out of a car, or breaking into your house, I'm assuming that they are not there for milk and cookies.

cjl8651
March 17, 2010, 05:18 AM
Unfortunately one can only retreat so far before backing up against a wall. Like Priz posted earlier.......be thankful for the NRA.

warnerwh
March 17, 2010, 06:50 AM
In Canada if you can only use a weapon equivalent to the person attacking how is a small woman supposed defend herself? My wife could have a knife and any male would need nothing to take it away. You're saying if she shot someone in defense of her life she could go to prison for life? I can't imagine what the people who made that law were thinking. I'd sure like to know how they would handle the situation.

robert garner
March 17, 2010, 08:50 AM
Priz you are being beaten with a pistol, if you had a pistol yourself are you only allowed to use it as a club? If I visited Canada, and was assaulted by three armed men am I expected to poll them as to what I may use or must I carry knives sporks and clubs as well as a firearm?Good luck
robert

earlthegoat2
March 17, 2010, 09:01 AM
There are a great deal of people in the US who are thankful they dont live in Canada and I find their laws curious on one extreme and a moot point on the other.

In other words I think Priz would be greatful if you did not ask all your questions about Canadian gun laws to him. Just be glad you dont live there.

On this note though it shows a lot for the man that he was able to fight back even though he was hit in the head.

Priz
March 17, 2010, 09:02 AM
I suppose a small woman is supposed to destory the attacker's moral with a series of high-powered screams. We seem to have reached the point where by-standers are scared to help someone being assaulted because they have a pretty decent chance of being shipped off to a prison for doing so.

There was a case here pretty recently (I think sometime in January) that I read on the CSSA site(our half-assed NRA, it's too small a lobby to actually get anything done), where a guy sucessfully defended himself with a 12 gauge against someone who'd come into his home specifically to kill him. He apparently had a good enough lawyer to justify his prevention of a first degree murder, so they nailed him for "improper ammo storage". I wish I could find the article again - he was locked up for (I think) 8 months before the court finally decided that there aren't actually any laws concerning ammo storage, mostly due to the CSSA's massive protests.

Our gun laws are pretty fricken stupid. The people who made them simply WEREN'T thinking. It's at the point where my province's LIBERALS see a huge problem with it (they actually split off from the Eastern Liberals over "gun control" issues). A criminal has no trouble buying a hi-cap, fully automatic weapon in a back alley, even in a tiny town like mine (I know because I seriously debated skipping all the legal hoops and buying under the counter), it's ridiculous to restrict lawabiding gun owners to 5 rounds in a centerfire, etc. etc. etc.

I could write up a pretty in-depth, factual, but probably quite opinionated rant if anyone here is interested in learning about our laws.

@AWorthyOpponent - I just learned about the Castle Doctrine today, when I saw it mentioned someplace else on the forums and read up as much as I could on it. Lots of Canadians seem to think you can shoot someone for walking on your lawn in the U.S. That sort of crap fear-mongering is part of why most politicians are scared to try and make our laws more sensible. You can bet all my SD-related gun letters to our local MPs (our Congressmen) will be containing a copy of it from now on.

@robert garner - I'd have to look into it, but it wouldn't shock me to find you still can't shoot him. After all, it could be a toy gun, or his gun might be empty and he could be robbing you to buy bullets to go kill some other poor sucker.

edit: That rant would take place elsewhere. I've totally hijacked the threat without realizing it. Sorry guys!

Mike J
March 17, 2010, 09:39 AM
Priz-Hang in there we are sympathetic to your cause. Who knows maybe one day ya'all can start booting some of those politicians out of office. It does take a long time to get ground back after losing it though.
A Worthy Opponent-Glad to see the man in Florida made it out of that situation. Maybe if enough other folks follow suit criminals will be more relunctant to try this type of thing.

Shung
March 17, 2010, 11:00 AM
this would be ok in Switzerland too...

your defense must be proportionated.. it doesnt mean you need to use a knife against a knife.. it means that if your life or health is voluntary endangered, you are right to use deadly force.. and you can use the most efficient tools at your disposal.

ClayInTX
March 17, 2010, 11:16 AM
Priz,

No, you haven’t hijacked the thread. It’s about self defense in the home and that’s what you spoke about.

We had some very bad laws here in the states, also, some years back and are having to fight to get back our rights. We, too, had to retreat in may states, could not defend property with lethal force, etc. etc. That is still a fact in a few states yet. We still have a ways to go.

Because Canada and the USA are so similar in all other things it seems that Canada should also be doing some severe changing of the laws. Our NRA is doing good but it wasn’t all that long ago that the NRA was on the wrong track. It took a “revolution” by the officers of it to turn it around.

From what I hear, the western provinces are quite different than the eastern. A man from Alberta or Saskatchewan once said, “The border between the United States and Canada should run north and south, not east and west.” Well, we might have to peel off ************ if that happened. Actually, we have just about got USA where it should be with many northeastern states making the right kind of laws.

You do know, don’t you, that Canada has permission to become part of the United States? Article 11 of the Articles of Confederation extends the invitation. So why don’t you become part of us and enjoy high taxes, bad roads and bridges, practice running from muggers in Chicago, and pay for welfare in New York City?

Clay

Shung
March 17, 2010, 11:56 AM
So why don’t you become part of us and enjoy high taxes, bad roads and bridges, practice running from muggers in Chicago, and pay for welfare in New York City?

^^ priceless !

wishin
March 17, 2010, 12:03 PM
Henry is not currently facing any charges in connection with the Ocoee incident.

The magic words you want to hear after such an incident.

Occam's Razor
March 17, 2010, 12:31 PM
In Canada if you can only use a weapon equivalent to the person attacking how is a small woman supposed defend herself? My wife could have a knife and any male would need nothing to take it away. You're saying if she shot someone in defense of her life she could go to prison for life? I can't imagine what the people who made that law were thinking. I'd sure like to know how they would handle the situation.Yep. Gun control is based the belief that a 100lb woman
has a constitutional right to fend off a 250lb rapist with her bare hands.

Silent Rifleman
March 17, 2010, 12:45 PM
It's called the Stand your Ground law. It's been repeatedly attacked by the psychos at Brady.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm


In a nutshell:


The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.


In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”


In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.


If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.


Iin layman's terms, if you shoot the crackhead who's trying to carjack you, his momma can't come back and sue you.

divemedic
March 17, 2010, 03:11 PM
Castle Doctrine, IMO doesn't apply here. He was attacked in his driveway by a man wielding a gun. His life was in imminent danger, and it was not possible for him to safely retreat. The homeowner was pistol whipped AND shot in the scuffle, and still managed to put one of the two critters down.

Incidentally, according to the Florida Dept of Corrections, and the Orange County Clerk, the man has spent (since 1991) a total of 13 1/2 years in prison, and has been convicted dozens of times. He is 37 years old (DOB 11/4/1972), and his Florida Criminal record begins in 1991. I doubt that is when his criminal career began, he probably moved here in 1991.

He has been charged/convicted of:

Possession of Drugs and/or paraphernalia at least 4 times
Dealing in cocaine
Possession of a concealed weapon
Possession of a firearm my a convicted felon
Battery on a LEO
Resisting arrest
Manufacturing drugs
Aggravated battery
Use of a firearm in commission of a felony
Shooting into an occupied dwelling
Burglary of an occupied dwelling
Burglary of an occupied dwelling with battery
Robbery with a firearm
Prowling
Grand Theft Motor vehicle
Simple battery

First Prison sentence: 3 1/2 years convicted 11/10/1992
date occured crime
April 2, 1991: Possession
April 15, 1991: Battery on a LEO
April 15, 1991: Resisting LEO with violence
May 22, 1991: Burglary

Second prison sentence: 4 1/2 years convicted 7/2/1993 (can't help but notice- if he had served his sentence from the previous conviction, he wouldn't have been able to do this one)
Sept 13, 1992: Battery with deadly weapon

Third stretch: 3 years, 3 months 6/30/1997 (again with the early release and crime)
11/08/1996: Shooting into an occupied dwelling and trafficking in cocaine

Edited to add:

Fourth stretch: 2 yr, 3 months 6/10/2002
7/4/2001 Grand Theft Auto

AWorthyOpponent
March 17, 2010, 03:26 PM
Castle Doctrine, IMO doesn't apply here. He was attacked in his driveway by a man wielding a gun. His life was in imminent danger, and it was not possible for him to safely retreat. The homeowner was pistol whipped AND shot in the scuffle, and still managed to put one of the two critters down.

Castle Doctrine applies to your car as well.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.

divemedic
March 17, 2010, 03:41 PM
He wasn't in his car, nor was he in his home. He was in the driveway in front of his home.

Also, you can use force to meet force anywhere that you have a right to be, but that is not the Castle Doctrine, that is the "Stand Your Ground Law."

You are confusing different laws.

Your first point is the Castle Doctrine 776.13
The second is Stand your ground 776.12
The third is Immunity from prosecution and civil liability 776.032

In this case, Castle is not applicable, and Stand your ground is unnecessary. All the Stand Your Ground law did was remove the requirement to retreat before using force, and in this case, safe retreat was not possible. All I am saying is that 776.13, and 776.12 did not help him any in this case. The law previous to the passing of the Stand Your Ground law did not include the language that removed the duty to retreat.

poker88
March 17, 2010, 05:07 PM
Incidentally, according to the Florida Dept of Corrections, and the Orange County Clerk, the man has spent (since 1991) a total of 13 1/2 years in prison, and has been convicted dozens of times. He is 37 years old, and his Florida Criminal record begins in 1991. I doubt that is when his criminal career began, he probably moved here in 1991.


If he's 37 this year then he was born in '73 so he would turn 18 in '91. I suspect the rest of his record is hidden in juvenile court.

Shung
March 17, 2010, 05:40 PM
he was such a nice guy... this is all because of the "society"...

Oldloader
March 17, 2010, 06:43 PM
Many sick, sad true stories here. Shoot them all and let god sort them out. I would prefer to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Thank you GW for CCW HR218

Mr.Davis
March 17, 2010, 09:31 PM
God Bless America.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ocoee Man Fires Back During Home Invasion" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!